3 replaced http://judaism.stackexchange.com/ with https://judaism.stackexchange.com/
source | link

I would like to supplement the important answers which precede mine:

The "Oral Torah" is mentioned "explicitly" in the sense that [according to our tradition] it is the subject being directly referred to in places such as the verse cited in DanF's answerDanF's answer. On the other hand, the "concept" or "doctrine" of Oral Torah is not stated explicitly in the same manner as many other concepts are only mentioned obliquely (resurrection of the deadresurrection of the dead, afterlife) or without full explanation ("angels") in the written Torah.

Yet despite not being "explicitly" taught, the written Torah is not self-sufficient for the implementation of its commandments and a number of important mitzvos implicitly demand recourse to an outside "living" body of knowledge. Notably, while we can learn certain things about the Torah's calendar from the written Torah we could not carry it out on the basis of the written Torah alone. Ironically some communities who rejected the Oral Torah objected to the "Rabbinic" move away from establishing the new moon by witnesses, a practice known from the Oral Torah but near as I can tell not explicitly mentioned in the Torah.

Similarly it would be impossible to identify which day was the seventh dayimpossible to identify which day was the seventh day for the observance of the Sabbath based off of the written Torah. Nor does the written Torah give explicit guidance on what constitutes a melachah ("work) on the Sabbath despite decreeing the ultimate penalty for Sabbath desecration.

In our own day we see the need for an outside body of knowledge (and what happens when it is lost) regarding the issue of techelestecheles, while others might argue that any source for the "color" would be fine according to the written Torah it is not at all clear what color we would be looking for without resort to outside information to explain to us what color "techeles" is, never mind its source or how to process it.

Then there are other areas where we see apparent allusions, Shokhet has mentionedhas mentioned that the Torah alludes to a command regarding ritual slaughter that isn't discussed otherwise in the written Torah. How to to produce tefillin (without a reason we should believe that it wasn't a literal command). Perhaps most significantly the written Torah establishes a court of seventy elders with broad authority but without much explicit discussion otherwise.

Why G-d opted for the written Torah to require external information in order to observe the mitzvos may require a number of answers, but that it does is a matter of fact.

I would like to supplement the important answers which precede mine:

The "Oral Torah" is mentioned "explicitly" in the sense that [according to our tradition] it is the subject being directly referred to in places such as the verse cited in DanF's answer. On the other hand, the "concept" or "doctrine" of Oral Torah is not stated explicitly in the same manner as many other concepts are only mentioned obliquely (resurrection of the dead, afterlife) or without full explanation ("angels") in the written Torah.

Yet despite not being "explicitly" taught, the written Torah is not self-sufficient for the implementation of its commandments and a number of important mitzvos implicitly demand recourse to an outside "living" body of knowledge. Notably, while we can learn certain things about the Torah's calendar from the written Torah we could not carry it out on the basis of the written Torah alone. Ironically some communities who rejected the Oral Torah objected to the "Rabbinic" move away from establishing the new moon by witnesses, a practice known from the Oral Torah but near as I can tell not explicitly mentioned in the Torah.

Similarly it would be impossible to identify which day was the seventh day for the observance of the Sabbath based off of the written Torah. Nor does the written Torah give explicit guidance on what constitutes a melachah ("work) on the Sabbath despite decreeing the ultimate penalty for Sabbath desecration.

In our own day we see the need for an outside body of knowledge (and what happens when it is lost) regarding the issue of techeles, while others might argue that any source for the "color" would be fine according to the written Torah it is not at all clear what color we would be looking for without resort to outside information to explain to us what color "techeles" is, never mind its source or how to process it.

Then there are other areas where we see apparent allusions, Shokhet has mentioned that the Torah alludes to a command regarding ritual slaughter that isn't discussed otherwise in the written Torah. How to to produce tefillin (without a reason we should believe that it wasn't a literal command). Perhaps most significantly the written Torah establishes a court of seventy elders with broad authority but without much explicit discussion otherwise.

Why G-d opted for the written Torah to require external information in order to observe the mitzvos may require a number of answers, but that it does is a matter of fact.

I would like to supplement the important answers which precede mine:

The "Oral Torah" is mentioned "explicitly" in the sense that [according to our tradition] it is the subject being directly referred to in places such as the verse cited in DanF's answer. On the other hand, the "concept" or "doctrine" of Oral Torah is not stated explicitly in the same manner as many other concepts are only mentioned obliquely (resurrection of the dead, afterlife) or without full explanation ("angels") in the written Torah.

Yet despite not being "explicitly" taught, the written Torah is not self-sufficient for the implementation of its commandments and a number of important mitzvos implicitly demand recourse to an outside "living" body of knowledge. Notably, while we can learn certain things about the Torah's calendar from the written Torah we could not carry it out on the basis of the written Torah alone. Ironically some communities who rejected the Oral Torah objected to the "Rabbinic" move away from establishing the new moon by witnesses, a practice known from the Oral Torah but near as I can tell not explicitly mentioned in the Torah.

Similarly it would be impossible to identify which day was the seventh day for the observance of the Sabbath based off of the written Torah. Nor does the written Torah give explicit guidance on what constitutes a melachah ("work) on the Sabbath despite decreeing the ultimate penalty for Sabbath desecration.

In our own day we see the need for an outside body of knowledge (and what happens when it is lost) regarding the issue of techeles, while others might argue that any source for the "color" would be fine according to the written Torah it is not at all clear what color we would be looking for without resort to outside information to explain to us what color "techeles" is, never mind its source or how to process it.

Then there are other areas where we see apparent allusions, Shokhet has mentioned that the Torah alludes to a command regarding ritual slaughter that isn't discussed otherwise in the written Torah. How to to produce tefillin (without a reason we should believe that it wasn't a literal command). Perhaps most significantly the written Torah establishes a court of seventy elders with broad authority but without much explicit discussion otherwise.

Why G-d opted for the written Torah to require external information in order to observe the mitzvos may require a number of answers, but that it does is a matter of fact.

2 edited body
source | link

I would like to supplement the important answers which proceeded meprecede mine:

The "Oral Torah" is mentioned "explicitly" in the sense that [according to our tradition] it is the subject being directly referred to in places such as the verse cited in DanF's answer. On the other hand, the "concept" or "doctrine" of Oral Torah is not stated explicitly in the same manner as many other concepts are only mentioned obliquely (resurrection of the dead, afterlife) or without full explanation ("angels") in the written Torah.

Yet despite not being "explicitly" taught, the written Torah is not self-sufficient for the implementation of its commandments and a number of important mitzvos implicitly demand recourse to an outside "living" body of knowledge. Notably, while we can learn certain things about the Torah's calendar from the written Torah we could not carry it out on the basis of the written Torah alone. Ironically some communities who rejected the Oral Torah objected to the "Rabbinic" move away from establishing the new moon by witnesses, a practice known from the Oral Torah but near as I can tell not explicitly mentioned in the Torah.

Similarly it would be impossible to identify which day was the seventh day for the observance of the Sabbath based off of the written Torah. Nor does the written Torah give explicit guidance on what constitutes a melachah ("work) on the Sabbath despite decreeing the ultimate penalty for Sabbath desecration.

In our own day we see the need for an outside body of knowledge (and what happens when it is lost) regarding the issue of techeles, while others might argue that any source for the "color" would be fine according to the written Torah it is not at all clear what color we would be looking for without resort to outside information to explain to us what color "techeles" is, never mind its source or how to process it.

Then there are other areas where we see apparent allusions, Shokhet has mentioned that the Torah alludes to a command regarding ritual slaughter that isn't discussed otherwise in the written Torah. How to to produce tefillin (without a reason we should believe that it wasn't a literal command). Perhaps most significantly the written Torah establishes a court of seventy elders with broad authority but without much explicit discussion otherwise.

Why G-d opted for the written Torah to require external information in order to observe the mitzvos may require a number of answers, but that it does is a matter of fact.

I would like to supplement the important answers which proceeded me:

The "Oral Torah" is mentioned "explicitly" in the sense that [according to our tradition] it is the subject being directly referred to in places such as the verse cited in DanF's answer. On the other hand, the "concept" or "doctrine" of Oral Torah is not stated explicitly in the same manner as many other concepts are only mentioned obliquely (resurrection of the dead, afterlife) or without full explanation ("angels") in the written Torah.

Yet despite not being "explicitly" taught, the written Torah is not self-sufficient for the implementation of its commandments and a number of important mitzvos implicitly demand recourse to an outside "living" body of knowledge. Notably, while we can learn certain things about the Torah's calendar from the written Torah we could not carry it out on the basis of the written Torah alone. Ironically some communities who rejected the Oral Torah objected to the "Rabbinic" move away from establishing the new moon by witnesses, a practice known from the Oral Torah but near as I can tell not explicitly mentioned in the Torah.

Similarly it would be impossible to identify which day was the seventh day for the observance of the Sabbath based off of the written Torah. Nor does the written Torah give explicit guidance on what constitutes a melachah ("work) on the Sabbath despite decreeing the ultimate penalty for Sabbath desecration.

In our own day we see the need for an outside body of knowledge (and what happens when it is lost) regarding the issue of techeles, while others might argue that any source for the "color" would be fine according to the written Torah it is not at all clear what color we would be looking for without resort to outside information to explain to us what color "techeles" is, never mind its source or how to process it.

Then there are other areas where we see apparent allusions, Shokhet has mentioned that the Torah alludes to a command regarding ritual slaughter that isn't discussed otherwise in the written Torah. How to to produce tefillin (without a reason we should believe that it wasn't a literal command). Perhaps most significantly the written Torah establishes a court of seventy elders with broad authority but without much explicit discussion otherwise.

Why G-d opted for the written Torah to require external information in order to observe the mitzvos may require a number of answers, but that it does is a matter of fact.

I would like to supplement the important answers which precede mine:

The "Oral Torah" is mentioned "explicitly" in the sense that [according to our tradition] it is the subject being directly referred to in places such as the verse cited in DanF's answer. On the other hand, the "concept" or "doctrine" of Oral Torah is not stated explicitly in the same manner as many other concepts are only mentioned obliquely (resurrection of the dead, afterlife) or without full explanation ("angels") in the written Torah.

Yet despite not being "explicitly" taught, the written Torah is not self-sufficient for the implementation of its commandments and a number of important mitzvos implicitly demand recourse to an outside "living" body of knowledge. Notably, while we can learn certain things about the Torah's calendar from the written Torah we could not carry it out on the basis of the written Torah alone. Ironically some communities who rejected the Oral Torah objected to the "Rabbinic" move away from establishing the new moon by witnesses, a practice known from the Oral Torah but near as I can tell not explicitly mentioned in the Torah.

Similarly it would be impossible to identify which day was the seventh day for the observance of the Sabbath based off of the written Torah. Nor does the written Torah give explicit guidance on what constitutes a melachah ("work) on the Sabbath despite decreeing the ultimate penalty for Sabbath desecration.

In our own day we see the need for an outside body of knowledge (and what happens when it is lost) regarding the issue of techeles, while others might argue that any source for the "color" would be fine according to the written Torah it is not at all clear what color we would be looking for without resort to outside information to explain to us what color "techeles" is, never mind its source or how to process it.

Then there are other areas where we see apparent allusions, Shokhet has mentioned that the Torah alludes to a command regarding ritual slaughter that isn't discussed otherwise in the written Torah. How to to produce tefillin (without a reason we should believe that it wasn't a literal command). Perhaps most significantly the written Torah establishes a court of seventy elders with broad authority but without much explicit discussion otherwise.

Why G-d opted for the written Torah to require external information in order to observe the mitzvos may require a number of answers, but that it does is a matter of fact.

1
source | link

I would like to supplement the important answers which proceeded me:

The "Oral Torah" is mentioned "explicitly" in the sense that [according to our tradition] it is the subject being directly referred to in places such as the verse cited in DanF's answer. On the other hand, the "concept" or "doctrine" of Oral Torah is not stated explicitly in the same manner as many other concepts are only mentioned obliquely (resurrection of the dead, afterlife) or without full explanation ("angels") in the written Torah.

Yet despite not being "explicitly" taught, the written Torah is not self-sufficient for the implementation of its commandments and a number of important mitzvos implicitly demand recourse to an outside "living" body of knowledge. Notably, while we can learn certain things about the Torah's calendar from the written Torah we could not carry it out on the basis of the written Torah alone. Ironically some communities who rejected the Oral Torah objected to the "Rabbinic" move away from establishing the new moon by witnesses, a practice known from the Oral Torah but near as I can tell not explicitly mentioned in the Torah.

Similarly it would be impossible to identify which day was the seventh day for the observance of the Sabbath based off of the written Torah. Nor does the written Torah give explicit guidance on what constitutes a melachah ("work) on the Sabbath despite decreeing the ultimate penalty for Sabbath desecration.

In our own day we see the need for an outside body of knowledge (and what happens when it is lost) regarding the issue of techeles, while others might argue that any source for the "color" would be fine according to the written Torah it is not at all clear what color we would be looking for without resort to outside information to explain to us what color "techeles" is, never mind its source or how to process it.

Then there are other areas where we see apparent allusions, Shokhet has mentioned that the Torah alludes to a command regarding ritual slaughter that isn't discussed otherwise in the written Torah. How to to produce tefillin (without a reason we should believe that it wasn't a literal command). Perhaps most significantly the written Torah establishes a court of seventy elders with broad authority but without much explicit discussion otherwise.

Why G-d opted for the written Torah to require external information in order to observe the mitzvos may require a number of answers, but that it does is a matter of fact.